The defendant is charged [in count __]
with breach of the peace in the first degree. The statute defining this offense
reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of breach of the
peace in the first degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or
alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person places (a
nonfunctional imitation of an explosive or incendiary device / an imitation of a
hazardous substance) in a public place or in a place or manner likely to be
discovered by another person.

For you to find the defendant guilty
of this charge, the state must first prove beyond a reasonable doubt the
following elements:

Element 1 - Intent/RecklessnessThe first element is that the
defendant

acted with the
intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. The predominant intent must
be to cause what a reasonable person operating under contemporary community
standards would consider a disturbance to or impediment of a lawful activity, a
deep feeling of vexation or provocation, or a feeling of anxiety prompted by
threatened danger or harm. <See
Intent: Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.>

recklessly created
a risk of causing inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. A person acts "recklessly"
with respect to a result or circumstances when (he/she) is aware of and
consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result
will occur or that such circumstances exist. <See
Recklessness, Instruction 2.3-4.>

The words "inconvenience, annoyance or
alarm" refer to what a reasonable person operating under contemporary community
standards would consider a disturbance to or impediment of a lawful activity, a
deep feeling of vexation or provocation, or a feeling of anxiety prompted by
threatened danger or harm.1

The second element is that the
defendant placed a (nonfunctional imitation of an explosive or incendiary device
/ an imitation of a hazardous substance) in a public place or in a place or
manner likely to be discovered by another person." <Insert appropriate
definition:>

"Explosive
or incendiary device" means (A) dynamite and all other forms of high
explosives, (B) any explosive bomb, grenade, missile or similar device, and (C)
any incendiary bomb or grenade, fire bomb or similar device, including any
device which (i) consists of or includes a breakable container which contains a
flammable liquid or compound and a wick composed of any material which, when
ignited, is capable of igniting such flammable liquid or compound, and (ii) can
be carried or thrown by an individual. You do not need to find that the item
was such a device. It need only appear to be one.

"Hazardous
substance" means any physical, chemical, biological or radiological substance or
matter which, because of its quantity, concentration or physical, chemical or
infectious characteristics, may cause or significantly contribute to an increase
in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible
illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health.2
You do not need to find that the substance was hazardous. It need only appear
to be so.

Element 3 - Public placeThe third element is that the (device
/ substance) must have been placed in a public place or in a place or manner
likely to be discovered by another person. "Public place" means any area that
is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or
private interests.3

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 1) (intended to cause / recklessly
created a risk of causing) public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, 2)
(he/she) did so by placing an imitation <identify type of device or substance>,
and 3) it was placed in a public place or in a place or manner likely to be
discovered by another person.

If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of breach
of peace in the first degree, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the
other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not
guilty.
_______________________________________________________

1
The Supreme Court applied this interpretive gloss to the mens rea language of
the disorderly conduct statute in State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. 795,
810-811 (1994). In State v. Wolff, 237 Conn. 633, 670 (1996), the Court
applied it to the breach of peace statute. See the discussion of intent in the
Introduction to this section.